Standing Committee C

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that copies of the money resolution in connection with the Bill are available in the Room.Clause 1 Equal opportunities for carers

Clause 1 - Equal opportunities for carers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Assessment of carers—
'(1) In section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c.12) (assessment of ability of carers to provide care), after subsection (2B) (inserted by section (Duty to inform carers of right to assessment)) there is inserted— 
 ''(2C) An assessment under subsection (1) or (2) above must include consideration of whether the carer— 
 (a) works or wishes to work, 
 (b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.'' 
 (2) In section 1 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c.16) (right of carer to assessment), after subsection (3) there is inserted— 
 ''(3A) An assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of whether the carer— 
 (a) works or wishes to work, 
 (b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.'' 
 (3) In section 6 of that Act (assessment of person with parental responsibility caring for disabled child), after subsection (2) there is inserted— 
 ''(2A) An assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of whether the person with parental responsibility for the child— 
 (a) works or wishes to work, 
 (b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.'' '.

Hywel Francis: I begin by warmly welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I hope that under your guidance we will have a constructive and productive afternoon. Although I trust that there will be an opportunity later to thank everyone who has helped the Bill to progress this far, I would like at the outset to thank Carers UK and Carers Wales for the excellent professional support that they have provided. In every respect, this is truly an England and Wales Bill. The Minister was generous in his remarks on Second Reading and at the public launch of the Bill, which was attended by English and Welsh Ministers, and at every stage we have had enthusiastic support and co-operation from the Welsh Assembly Government and their officials. It has been a truly equal partnership.
 Before I go into the detail of clause 1, I should say that this has been an all-party measure, as was demonstrated on Second Reading when all hon. Members who contributed spoke in favour. During 
 that debate, my hon. Friend the Minister demonstrated his knowledge and understanding of issues that are close to carers' hearts. He spoke positively about the intentions of the Bill and about certain clauses, such as clause 3, which covers the duty to inform carers. I hope that after this Committee stage the Government will feel able to support the Bill fully. 
 It is not my intention to rehearse the arguments in favour of the Bill; that was comprehensively done by all those who spoke on Second Reading. However, I want to reflect briefly on the reasons for our being here today, the intentions behind the Bill, and the principles that underpin our discussions. The Bill has been a journey for me and for carers throughout England and Wales who anxiously await the progress of our deliberations. The experience of my wife, Mair, and I in caring for our son, Sam, has helped to inform us on this journey, which has been travelled by millions of other carers, some of whom are in the Room today, and will be travelled by millions of carers after us. They do not have, as we fortunately do, the opportunity to make legislation that will change their lives. It is our task to seize that opportunity. 
 We shall debate several key issues for carers. Certain principles and intentions underpin the whole of the Bill, but in particular clause 1. They are the health and well-being of carers; ensuring that carers have equal opportunities to work and access to leisure, training and learning opportunities; ensuring that carers have information about their rights; and achieving co-operation between authorities for the greater good of carers. I stress that we are borrowing from the best and want the rest to rise to the standard of the best. Clause 1 defines the purpose of the Bill. It aims to provide opportunities for carers equal to those available to non-carers, recognising that carers should have a life beyond their caring responsibilities. Two bodies that recently wrote to me—the Equal Opportunities Commission and TOPSS, the training organisation for the personal social services—have a very good understanding not only of the principles of the Bill, but of the practical issues that we are trying to address. 
 Clause 1 derives very much from the new era of democratic devolution in the United Kingdom and specifically from Northern Ireland's equal opportunities legislation, Scottish legislation and the Government of Wales Act 1998, which is underpinned explicitly by the ethos of equal opportunities. Also from my country come specific strategies for social inclusion and social justice, which are driven forward by the new Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration. We are now creating a dynamic policy environment that is conducive to recognising the rights of carers. The recently published Welsh Assembly Government strategic document entitled ''Wales: A Better Country'' speaks of 
''our guiding vision of a fairer, more prosperous, healthier and better educated country rooted in our commitment to social justice and to putting health and wealth creation that is sustainable at the heart of policy-making''.
 That underpins our approach in Wales and England under the Bill. 
 Clause 1 is designed to place in law the principle of equality of opportunity for carers in relation to work, education and learning within local authority social services departments. It aims to embed those principles in policies, procedures, commissioning of services and so on. We are trying to break down institutional barriers that prevent carers from accessing their rightful opportunities. A similar duty exists for carers under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is from that legislation that we have borrowed. The draft Disability Discrimination Bill will introduce a similar welcome measure for disabled people. I hope that that legislation will be brought forward soon. 
 One of my aims in clause 1 was to ensure that assessment procedures for carers regularly examined work, training, lifelong learning and leisure issues. I also wanted to ensure that the same opportunities were extended to parents of disabled children like Mair and myself. The new clause does precisely that in a more direct way, and I warmly welcome it. We must not underestimate the importance of work, lifelong learning and leisure for carers, many of whom may face a lifetime of caring. When I think about the application of new clause 2, I see that prejudice against carers working could become a thing of the past. In future, we might not receive letters from constituents saying that they were told to give up work to care for their relative, and that opportunities for them were never even discussed. If we achieve that through the Bill, it will be real progress for carers and for society at large. It will be something that we can celebrate. 
 The Minister spoke on Second Reading about the Government's problems with clause 1 and its interpretation. In considering whether we should vote against clause stand part, can he reassure me that the principle of equality of opportunity will be incorporated in guidance? Guidance would surely give him an opportunity to incorporate the principles to which we aspire in ensuring that services, policies and procedures are responsive to carers, so that they no longer put up barriers to education and training, but support carers in having a wider life. 
 In thinking about new clause 2 as a replacement for clause 1, we must draw attention to the fact that it will place on local authorities the same duties in respect of work, lifelong learning and leisure in relation to children as it will in relation to adults—or at least that is what it appears to do. My Bill currently applies only to people aged 16 and over. I understand that the Children's Society, Disabled Parents Network and Carers UK would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Department for Education and Skills whether that is an appropriate way of dealing with young carers. I, too, am keen to ensure that the right organisations are consulted. Representatives of my local authority, Neath Port Talbot county borough council, were enthusiastic about the idea in my discussions with them, but they wanted to think more about it. They especially wanted to consider the guidance further. Organisations such as the Association of Directors of Social Services, which has so far supported my Bill, also need an opportunity to evaluate such a significant change to the legislation. 
 However, that matter should not hold up the Bill's progress, and I am very keen to see the new clause incorporated into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.

Stephen Ladyman: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I beg your indulgence, as this is the first time that I have had the honour of presenting the Government's position all on my own in a Committee such as this one. I know that you will be kind to me and guide me past my errors if I make a complete mess of it.
 I, too, thank hon. Members for the spirit of co-operation on the Bill shown so far across the House, for our constructive debates on Second Reading and on the money resolution, and for the positive way in which all Members with an interest in this matter have been prepared to engage with each other and to share ideas. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), whose Bill this is, for the way in which he has been prepared to work closely with me and my officials in devising amendments that will address the Government's concerns about the Bill in its current form. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that I hope very much that at the end of our proceedings Sam's Bill will be well on its way to becoming Sam's Act and I will be in a position to say that the Government are ready to support it. That said, I should point out why the Committee would be unwise to leave in parts of clause 1, and why I believe that new clause 2 addresses some of those concerns and would therefore be better than clause 1. 
 I agree with my hon. Friend about what the Bill is designed to achieve. I also agree that it is important to promote equal opportunities for carers: we want them to have as wide a range of opportunities to work, to take up education, and to engage in leisure activities as people who do not have caring roles have. However, there is a slight problem in that ''equal opportunities'' as a legal term is usually backed by a considerable volume of legislation in those parts of the law where equal opportunities are usually discussed, and such precise definitions do not exist for carers. 
 The Government's key concern about clause 1 is that it would lead to too great a range of possible interpretations of what we expect local authorities to do. What they were expected to do would not be clear to them, and there would be a danger of some local authorities under-interpreting and others over-interpreting their responsibilities. The thinking behind new clause 2 is that the Government believe that we need a much tighter clause that specifically indicates to local councils what they are expected to do, and that narrows the areas in which they will be expected to ensure that carers had the new opportunities.

Paul Burstow: The Minister is helpfully setting out the Government's position. Will he explain why, even though clause 1 provides the Government with the facility to make regulations, it is not believed to provide a tool for the Government to prevent uncertainty by providing clear regulations?

Stephen Ladyman: First, the language of the clause is insufficiently precise. Secondly, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point about regulations, in my view it is always better to be precise in the primary legislation and therefore avoid the need for regulations. There was an opportunity in the Bill to do that, because we could insert the duties into existing legislation. We would not be creating confusion within the existing legislation, because we would be amending it. The more precise language in new clause 2 would give councils a much better direction, so that they would understand exactly what they are expected to do.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon asked whether, in the event that he was convinced of the need to replace clause 1with new clause 2, we would be prepared to set out the position in guidance. I am happy to confirm that there is already policy and practice guidance regarding the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 which clearly sets out councils' responsibilities and which was well received. I acknowledge with the passing of Sam's Bill—as Sam's Bill becomes Sam's Act—that guidance will become out of date. I am prepared to undertake to review the guidance and, after appropriate consultation, to issue new guidance, should that be necessary. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured.

Wayne David: Will my hon. Friend make clear what the phrase ''equality of opportunity'' means? Can he confirm that he is happy for the words ''Equal Opportunities'' to be used in the title of the Bill? Is there is an inconsistency other legislation introduced by other Departments which has not included that phrase?

Stephen Ladyman: I am happy for the phrase to continue to be used in the title of the Bill. Although we may not actually use the words ''equal opportunities'' in the Bill itself, the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon can be easily understood from his comments when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading and from his speech a minute or two ago. It is his intention to foster equal opportunities between carers and non-carers. Even though we may not use that precise wording to frame our provision, the Government's intention is clear.
 We want carers who wish to work to have the right to work. For those carers who wish to take part in education, we want that to be built in to the care plans that are put together for the person for whom they are caring. We want them to have the opportunity to engage in leisure activities, to the extent that I feel that it would be appropriate that if a carer wanted to take part in a physical fitness or aerobics class in the evening, the care plan should be adapted to ensure that the person could be cared for while the carer went out to engage in such activity. The fundamental life expectations that all members of the Committee would expect for ourselves and for our families are often denied to carers because of their responsibilities and duties. What my hon. Friend is asking for, and what the new clause will succeed in doing if it is accepted by the Committee, is to make sure that carers have those opportunities.

Huw Edwards: When discussing leisure opportunities, my hon. Friend will surely wish to congratulate Monmouthshire county council on funding yet another pampering session for the carers of Monmouthshire, so that they may enjoy aromatherapy and other such things. That reflects the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced. Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge that one of the great things about the Government of Wales Act 1998 is that it enshrines equal opportunity into all areas of the Government of Wales?

Stephen Ladyman: It is not for me to comment on what the Government of Wales and the Welsh Assembly do, and I suspect that I would trigger a constitutional crisis if I went too far down that line. However, I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of Monmouthshire county council: its work sounds like the best practice that a lot of councils would do well to adopt. I am not sure that my local council in Kent has gone down the aromatherapy route, but there is no reason why it should not.

Paul Burstow: I do not want to encourage the Minister to trigger a constitutional crisis by answering this question, but will he clarify whether new clause 2 and other Government proposals will enable the Welsh Assembly to benefit from the legislation once it is enacted?

Stephen Ladyman: I can confirm that we have developed our proposals with the full knowledge and co-operation of the Welsh Assembly, and certain parts of the Bill will clearly have an impact on it. There are other areas of activity, which I will describe as we move through the Bill, that I believe that the Welsh Assembly will take action to mimic. That is a matter for the Assembly—it is not for me to instruct it to act—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I believe that the Bill and other measures will have positive benefits for carers in Wales.
 I want now to make some specific comments on clause 1 to ensure that the record shows exactly why we have tabled new clause 2. As it stands, it is not clear from clause 1(1) what social services would be required to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon has the legitimate aspiration that local authorities should change their attitude to carers, but it is not clear how they would fulfil that obligation. Subsection (3) provides a wide regulation-making power, the need for which is unclear. 
 New clause 2 will require consideration of certain matters in assessments under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. It does so by requiring councils to consider whether the carer works or wishes to work, as well as whether the carer undertakes or wishes to undertake education, training or leisure activities outside their caring role. The aim is for it to feed through to the existing duty of councils to establish what services should be provided in light of the assessment. 
 By amending section 1 of the 1995 Act, the new clause will cover carers of all ages, including children under the age of 16. However, I want to make it clear that the new clause applies when the person is working 
 or wishes to work. Nothing in it permits an authority to force a child into work. The Government are clear that they want to ensure that young carers can gain maximum life chance benefits from education opportunities, health care and social care. Although the policy is to discourage children from undertaking such responsible roles, which may limit their life choices, we must acknowledge that some do so in practice. The emphasis is on helping the family as a whole rather than focusing exclusively on the needs of individuals within it, whether they are disabled adults or young carers. Children who are carers should routinely be assessed under the Children Act 1989. As a matter of law, they could be assessed under the 1995 Act, but that would not be expected or in line with Children Act 1989 guidance. In so far as they are assessed under the 1995 Act, the new obligation to consider work or wishes to work should remain—for example, if a 15-year-old wanted to take up a paper round. 
 Following careful consideration of clause 1(1), which would impose a general duty of promoting equality of opportunity for carers, the Government remain of the view that it is impossible to frame any provisions that would make sense within the framework of social services legislation or that would impose a clear and manageable duty on councils and therefore deliver the intended, tangible benefits for carers. Instead, new clause 2 creates a specific duty, making it clear that when carrying out assessments under the existing legislation, councils must consider the wishes of a carer to work or undertake education, training or leisure activities. That makes the principle behind the duty as originally drafted into a concrete duty to act in a certain way. No authority should have difficulty in understanding what they must do. To that extent, it should mean that carers' lives outside caring are properly taken into account by councils. The Government believe that that will help to produce better opportunities for carers to engage in work, education, training and leisure alongside their fellow citizens who are not carers. That is a better approach than imposing a vague duty. 
 New clause 2 will ensure that the assessment is undertaken in a manner that understands and explores the possibility that carers should be able to participate in life beyond their caring duties, and to think beyond what they need to continue to care. That could include the situation I described earlier, where a carer wishes to go on a training course or join a keep-fit group. In those circumstances social services will have to consider those wishes when planning the care package. As part of their assessment, carers will be able to discuss alternative care services and highlight the importance of equality of opportunity for all aspects of life, such as the opportunity to experience normal family life in the case of the parent of a disabled child. In that example, the package may provide the possibility of freeing some leisure time for the carer and for other children in the family through structured play time with the disabled child, while social services provides services to run the house. 
 I hope that that explains the rationale behind the Government's thinking. I also hope that, along with 
 my responses to the questions, it will enable the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon to agree that clause 1 does not stand part of the Bill and then, subsequently, we will accept new clause 2 to replace it.

Paul Goodman: It is a great pleasure, Mr. Benton, to see you in the Chair.
 I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon on introducing the Bill. He knows that we support it. We did not oppose it on Second Reading, nor did we oppose the money resolution, which the Minister moved last week. In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that it was the first time that he had led for the Government on a private Member's Bill and that if he made a mess of it, Mr. Benton, you would steer him in the right direction. This is the first time that I have led for the Opposition on a private Member's Bill. So, if the Minister and I both make a mess of it, you can steer us both in the right direction and we will be able to move towards getting Sam's Bill on the statute book. I am sure that all members of the Committee will support the Minister and myself in that effort. 
 The Minister has essentially kept his word on the undertakings that he made on Second Reading. He assured the House that the Government wanted to get the Bill on to the statute book. In relation to clause 1, new clause 2 and further clauses that we will be discussing, it seems that he has said to the hon. Member for Aberavon that although the Government and other political parties wish to support him in constructing the Bill, which will provide equal opportunities and better facilities for carers, we wish to build on completely different foundations. If one examines the new clause, to which the Minister spoke, and clause 1, one finds that he has established the new clause on the foundation of the Carer (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. With the new clause—and with all the other new clauses, I suspect—he is trying to ensure that there are no legal entanglements or contradictions between anything that might come out of this Bill and existing legislation. That is a reasonable objective. 
 I have some questions on the new clause, especially about the phrase ''equality of opportunity'', which was in the Bill as drafted, but which is not in the more economical new clause 2. I want to be clear what the Minister is saying. I think it is that because there is legislation on equality that applies to certain groups such as people with disabilities but does not provide for carers, the Government believe that a private Member's Bill is not the right vehicle with which to extend the principle of equality of opportunity to carers, just as they believe that it is the wrong mechanism with which to extend that principle to other groups who are not covered by current equality legislation. 
 I should be grateful if the Minister said a little more about the guidelines that will be issued and their timing. When referring to the guidance, I think he said that the Government would produce it ''should it be necessary''. Will he clarify whether the Government 
 intend to issue guidance? That is very important to clause 1. I hope that the Minister will also answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Aberavon about consultation on provisions that affect children under 16 with caring responsibilities.

Paul Burstow: This is the second private Member's Bill on carers on which I have had the benefit of serving in a Standing Committee. It thus occurs to me as we consider clause stand part and the new clause tabled by the Minister, that because of the efforts of Back Benchers, carers legislation has been able to progress over time. We have managed to build an architecture of legislation because of the efforts of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Aberavon and others before him. However, there must come a point at which the Department of Health needs to consider stepping in to discover, first, whether there is a need to codify and consolidate legislation and, secondly, whether there are gaps that necessarily emerge in the piecemeal process of a private Member's Bill.
 The Minister's argument seems to be that the Bill cannot have a clause that advances the case for equal opportunities for carers because, by its very nature, a private Member's Bill is not capable of carrying all the clauses necessary to elaborate on it. Surely, at least in part, the Minister should follow the logic of his own argument, look to the future, and develop an appropriate Government measure. The Government already have a model on which to draw and I therefore ask the Minister why he and his advisers have concluded that the duty in clause 1(1) is too widely drawn and is too susceptible to misunderstanding. 
 Earlier today, I was looking at the draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the draft regulatory impact assessment, which discuss the impact on local authorities of an almost exact replica of the duty in the Bill. They make it clear that the duty envisaged in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill would have a constrained impact on local authorities. Those are not the precise words in the text, but it is made clear that it would not have an open-ended result, but would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to it and consider it in the context of their other statutory responsibilities. That is what the Bill before us was intended to do. I understand that the draftsmen of clause 1 had to work within the constraints applicable to a private Member's Bill. 
 I want to pick up the important point made by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). The Minister gave a generous undertaking to the hon. Member for Aberavon that the Government would undertake a review of the guidance after the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament and would issue new guidance if necessary. Has the Department yet undertaken any assessment of the likely impact of the legislation, so as to be able to make at least a provisional conclusion on whether such revisions will be needed? It would help to know whether it is a little more than ''as necessary''. It would help to know whether new guidance will be issued. With that, and with any assurance that the Minister might give, I 
 would not resist the removal of clause 1. The substitute that the Minister proposes offers a solid and concrete piece of legislation that will help many carers.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall try to answer those questions. First, before we can begin consultation on guidance, the Bill must have received Royal Assent. There would then need to be a three-month consultation period. That gives hon. Members an opportunity to work out what will be involved. When I say ''if necessary'', I am mindful of the fact that we will have to wait until we get back the results of consultation before making a decision. It may result in our being advised that further guidance is not needed and that everyone understands their obligations. However, my strong suspicion is that we will have to introduce new guidance, and that the consultation will suggest that guidance will be helpful to those who have to interpret what is required.
 Perhaps the best way of illustrating why equal opportunity might be difficult to achieve under the Bill is to give a couple of valid examples provided by my officials. A carer assessed by social services may tell the social worker that she felt that she had been unsuccessful in getting a job in a private firm because she was a carer. Another carer, who seeks accommodation and wants to rent a flat, believes that he has found a flat that would allow him to care for the other person while maintaining his own life, but is refused the tenancy by the landlord because the caring role might require some adaptations to the property. 
 I am sure that the Committee accepts that such carers would have been treated unfairly, and would want something done about it. However, it would not be a matter for social services. Were we to include the phrase ''equal opportunities'' in a clause that applied to the duties of social services, we might be implying that social services had to engage in duties beyond their normal powers. Our main concern is that, by using that terminology, we might be opening a can of worms that would be better left unopened. 
Mr. Burstow indicated dissent.

Stephen Ladyman: In any event, whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees—I can see by his body language that he does not—he will have to put up with it, because that is our view. The simple fact is that we remain to be convinced that the Bill would be the right vehicle for carrying the huge body of legislative guidance that would be necessary to extend equal opportunities to carers in the way that he would like.

Angela Browning: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have given some thought to the two examples given by the Minister—one of a person denied access to a property that was advertised on the open market, and the other of a person turned down for a job. Would that not be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Lady is right: there may be other legislation that would deal with both those issues. The point is that the way in which the clause is worded might mean that it requires social services to take action in those circumstances, and may even require them to use the legislation to enforce the rights
 of the carer. It may become a duty of social services to take such action, but currently it is not, and a private Member's Bill is no place to try to extend their duties. I hope that those explanations are sufficient for the Committee, and that Committee members will agree that clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, and that new clause 2 should.

Hywel Francis: I take this opportunity to confirm that, in light of the Minister's observations, I will support new clause 2 and withdraw my support for clause 1. I hope that the Committee will support me on that.
 Question put and negatived.
Clause 1 disagreed to.Clause 2Planning for the provision ofinformation for carers

Clause 2 - Planning for the provision of - information for carers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr. Francis: On Second Reading, the Minister announced his intention to introduce directions under section 28 of the Health Act 1999, which he hoped would deal with some of the issues raised by clauses 2 and 5 of my Bill. I am grateful to him for that, as I have been able to consider whether to accept his proposal to leave out those clauses, which are vital for carers. I have received warm support for clause 2 from the Association of Directors of Social Services.
We all know how important the planning of information and the involvement of health bodies is to carers, and we are all familiar with the statistics about how caring has an impact on carers' health. Given that carers save the state a staggering £57 billion a year, we cannot afford, economically, for that relationship to break down. I am reassured that the directions will achieve some of the principles that my Bill set out to achieve.
I understand that the Minister is concerned that clause 5 duplicates existing legislation, and I think that the directions provide an important compromise. Although they do not achieve everything that I set out to achieve with clause 5, they do come close. I welcome the fact that they are clearly worded, and I know that certain organisations in England will also welcome such clearly worded secondary legislation. The Welsh Assembly will also consider the Bill in relation to the directions, but that, of course, is a matter for it.
Dr. Ladyman: The carers' strategy identified the fact that information plays a key role in supporting carers. Information should be available as early as possible—we will discuss the importance of that when we debate later clauses—and I appreciate that my hon. Friend's intention when he originally drafted the Bill was that clause 2 should provide the planning structure to ensure that information is delivered.
The concept that local authorities and NHS bodies should work together to provide carers with information about their rights and benefits is well established, but the NHS has been much slower to recognise the role of carers. An obligation on local authorities to work with the NHS to provide such 
information would support the intention laid out in the carers strategy and would certainly reflect best practice. Nevertheless, I still have some concerns about the clause. Its wording suggests that the intended outcome is to prepare a strategy in co-operation with NHS bodies. I have two concerns about that.
First, the existence of a strategy does not mean that carers would have access to the relevant information, and it is important that any obligation imposed by the clause should have the effect of getting information to carers. To begin with, the clause appears to be about an information strategy and the responsibilities of social services authorities with respect to carers, but it ends up imposing duties on all local authorities to develop an information strategy about promoting carers' health and well-being.
Secondly, and perhaps of greater concern, community strategies are not the appropriate vehicle to ensure that authorities consider the issues that the Bill addresses. As I said on Second Reading, central Government should not and must not be over-prescriptive or dictate to councils what the form and content of their community plans must be. Councils must be able to make strategic decisions about what best suits their populations and to respond to individual needs.
Finally, the duty is to act in co-operation with NHS bodies, but it is unclear whether that also imposes an obligation on NHS bodies to co-operate. If so, it would be necessary to specify both which NHS bodies were intended and what the NHS had to do with education, training and leisure opportunities. Local authorities already have duties to participate in the preparation of local delivery plans. The key is to ensure that the NHS starts to consider the needs of carers in its planning. To that end, the Department has been looking to the most appropriate way of ensuring the participation of health bodies. In our opinion, using the existing powers in NHS legislation is the most appropriate method.
To that end, we have developed a consultation draft of directions, with regard to the inclusion of carers' issues within the primary care trust planning process, under section 28 of the Health Act 1999. Although the proposed directions on which we shall go to consultation are not part of today's debate, I have taken the liberty of putting copies of them on the Table. Members of the Committee may look at them if they so wish.
The aim of the directions is to establish a planning mechanism at PCT level to ensure that local bodies recognise that they have a role in supporting carers in the broadest context, with consideration of delivery of information and support to carers.
PCTs will have to take into account the health needs of carers and consult the director of social services and other bodies about delivery of support for carers when preparing or reviewing any plans. That fact is key to raising the profile of carers. The requirement will mean that the health service will consider carers in its overall planning process, but 
without dictating in detail the terms and the mechanism. The provision will also promote an open dialogue between the health service and colleagues in councils. Moreover, it will place only negligible financial demands on the NHS, since the obligation will be to consider carers within the normal process of planning.
The intention is to make those directions available to stakeholders for consultation, both in hard copy and on the Department's dedicated carers website. That will be announced in the chief executive's bulletin and through the carers networks. We would welcome comments on the draft directions from the Committee and through the consultation process.
The National Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services will consider the need for directions in Wales, and a decision will be reached in the light of existing planning guidelines on local health, social care and well-being strategies, after discussion with organisations representing carers in Wales. Clearly, however, that is a matter for the National Assembly and Wales, not for me.
Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister provide some clarification? We are all grateful that he has circulated the draft paper today. There are some cases where social services are not the lead authority in day-to-day contact with the person whose needs are being met by the carer. I am thinking in particular of people with mental health problems, such as people on the autistic disorder spectrum, who may be in direct contact with a community psychiatric nurse instead of a social worker. Such cases would come under the health umbrella rather than the social services umbrella.
The Minister's recommendations on improving the way in which the health service looks at carers' needs are not quite the mirror image of what the Bill requires social services to do for carers—that is, what a PCT would also have to adopt, under conditions of equality between the two services, which one would presumably expect. Can he reassure me on that point? Multi-agency conferences are not always held to deal with the needs of the person being cared for and the carer. If it was a health-related responsibility along the lines that I have suggested, would the recommendations and guidelines to PCTs mirror the social security requirements that we have talked about so far?
Mr. Goodman: Further to my hon. Friend's comments, what the Minister said in relation to the directions straddles clauses 2 and 5—he referred to both clauses. He explained why the Government were unhappy with the idea of local authorities and health bodies being obliged under clause 2 to promote carers' health and well-being in their community strategies. I have a couple of brief questions in relation to clause 5.
Clause 5 identifies national health service bodies and local authorities. The new directions are narrow. They seem to apply solely to PCTs, and not to other health bodies—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). They seem not to apply directly to local authorities, although I expect the Minister will say that they are 
covered in the directions and that he wants to place a duty on PCTs. Clause 5 also contains the words
''to promote and safeguard the health and welfare of carers in England and Wales.''
It presumes that health and welfare are not identical. The directions refer only to health, so he might want to explain why he did not include welfare.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): May I extend slightly the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, and ask whether the paragraph to which he referred should include ambulance trusts? My local NHS trust is one of only two that are integrated with an ambulance trust. Carers have an important role for patients travelling by ambulance. We recently commissioned a jumbulance, an ambulance that can carry three patients and an equivalent number of carers, to transport patients to the mainland. I wonder whether that is adequately covered by the new provisions.
Mr. Burstow: On clause 2, will the Minister elaborate the thinking behind the substitution of the directions? The direction deals with PCTs; as a commissioner, I can understand how that picks up ambulance trusts and other organisations. However, I am puzzled that the original intention was to ensure that local authorities should promote the economic and other well-being of their communities, because that general duty is already provided for in statute. I do not understand why it is felt inappropriate for the legislation to provide a clearer duty on local authorities, in partnership with other agencies, first and foremost to identify carers in order to provide them with information. Will the Minister explain why it is inappropriate to seek to place such a duty on local authorities, yet, in the new devolved NHS, it will still be appropriate to place such a duty on PCTs?
Dr. Ladyman: I shall answer those questions as best I can. I stress that the directions that we have tabled—they are not formally the subject of this debate—are a draft version on which we intend to consult. Hon. Members have suggested some good changes to the wording of those directions. I shall ensure that the official record of today's proceedings becomes part of the consultation process on the directions. I am sure that hon. Members will have other views on how to improve them in the fullness of time.
It is important to stress that the directions are made under section 28 of the Health Act 1999, so they can state only what that allows—it defines the boundaries that the directions can encompass. With that proviso, I assure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the concerns that she raised will be considered.
Hon. Members are being slightly unfair in asking why the directions, and the Government's approach, do not go far enough, and also in suggesting measures that were not in the Bill. They really cannot criticise me because the draft directions do not do something that the Bill itself never intended. They may be good ideas, to which we shall return, but they are not within the scope of the Bill.
Were we to agree to clause 2, it would add £7 million to local authorities' costs in producing strategies that would not help carers. I suspect that 
carers would want that £7 million to be spent on something more constructive than people writing plans to fulfil unnecessary objectives. Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. The Government directions will go a long way to ensuring that PCTs live up to the obligations to carers that we want to impose on them. The new clauses that we have tabled, and the directions, will achieve all the objectives that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon intended for clause 2 when he first introduced his private Member's Bill.
I hope that the Committee will reject clause 2.
Dr. Francis: In the light of the Minister's reassurances and observations, I am happy to withdraw my support for clause 2 and I urge the Committee to do the same.
Question put and negatived. 
 Clause 2 disagreed to.

Clause 3 - Duty to inform

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Duty to inform carers of right to assessment—
'(1) In section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c.12) (assessment of ability of carers to provide care), after subsection (2A) there is inserted— 
 ''(2B) In any case where— 
 (a) a local authority are carrying out an assessment mentioned in paragraph (a) of either subsection (1) or subsection (2) above in relation to the relevant person or (as the case may be) a disabled child, and 
 (b) it appears to the local authority that an individual may be entitled to request (but has not requested) an assessment under the subsection in question of his ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the relevant person or the disabled child, 
 the local authority must inform the individual that he may be so entitled before they make their decision as to the needs of the relevant person or the disabled child.'' 
 (2) After section 6 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c.16) there is inserted— 
 ''6A Duty to inform carers of right to assessment 
 (1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to a local authority that it would be required to carry out a carer's assessment on being asked to do so by— 
 (a) the carer, or 
 (b) a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child (''the responsible person''). 
 (2) The local authority must inform the carer or, as appropriate, the responsible person that he may be entitled to a carer's assessment (but this is subject to subsections (3) and (4)). 
 (3) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the carer if the local authority has previously— 
 (a) carried out a carer's assessment for him in relation to the person cared for, 
 (b) informed him that he may be entitled to a carer's assessment in relation to the person cared for, or 
 (c) carried out an assessment of him under section 4(3) of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.)Act 2003 (c.5) in relation to the person cared for. 
 (4) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the responsible person if the local authority has previously carried out a carer's assessment for him in relation to the disabled child or informed him that he may be entitled to a carer's assessment in relation to the disabled child. 
 (5) In this section ''carer's assessment'' means— 
 (a) in the case of the carer, an assessment under section 1 of his ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the person cared for, 
 (b) in the case of the responsible person, an assessment under section 6 of his ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the disabled child.''.'.

Hywel Francis: Carers have told me that this clause is hugely important to them. Like my Bill, Government new clause 1 is borrowed from legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
 As the parent of a child with Down's syndrome, I warmly welcome the fact that parents of disabled children will be told about their rights. I have closely examined new clause 1, which does what clause 3 set out to do in a more direct and concrete way. I hope that the Committee will agree to replace clause 3 with the new clause; if it does so, parents in England and Wales, including the parents of disabled children, will be able to celebrate the fact that they enjoy the same rights as carers in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is another illustration of the success of democratic devolution in assisting the development of progressive policies throughout the United Kingdom.

Stephen Ladyman: The clause brings us to an important matter. Information is vital if people are to get the support that they need; the theme was raised frequently, and in great detail, on Second Reading by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
 We as a Government place considerable emphasis on ensuring that everyone receives the rights and benefits to which they are entitled. Assessments are carers' gateway to support and services, but despite the abundance of best practice information and guidance for people working with carers, some carers remain unaware of their rights. 
 It is therefore appropriate that the Bill ensures that the few who do not routinely inform carers of their rights should now follow the practice of the majority who do. That will ensure that carers receive information about their rights in a more consistent way and at an appropriate time. Rather than creating a freestanding provision, however, it would be more appropriate to amend the existing legislation on carers. The outcome will be updated legislation in which all the rights relating to carers assessments can be found. 
 New clause 1 therefore introduces new provisions into the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. Broadly speaking, the proposed changes will require councils to inform carers who have not requested an assessment, but who appear to be entitled to one under those Acts, of their entitlement. 
 The new clause amends section 1 of 1995 Act so that a local authority that carries out an assessment of the person cared for and finds that the carer may be 
 entitled to a carers assessment must inform the carer of his right. The authority would then have to inform him of that right before deciding what services the person cared for should receive. 
 The new clause also amends the 2000 Act. Where it appears to a local authority that it may be required to undertake a carers assessment if asked to do so by the carer, it should inform the carer that he may be entitled to an assessment. However, there would be no such requirement if the authority had already informed him of his rights or carried out a carers assessment under the 2000 Act or the Community Care (Delayed Discharges) Act 2003. 
 The new clause is the most effective way of ensuring that carers are informed of their rights by word of mouth, via a leaflet and so on. Guidance published under the 1995 and 2000 Acts states that carers should be offered information in that way. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill and that it will accept new clause 1.

Hywel Francis: In the light of the Minister's comments, I am happy to support his proposals, and I hope that the Committee will do so, too.
 Question put and negatived.
Clause 3 disagreed to.Clause 4Co-operation between Authorities

Clause 4 - Co-operation between Authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 6, in
clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
'Section (Co-operation between authorities), in so far as it confers functions on a local authority within the meaning of that section.
Co-operation between authorities.'' '.
Amendment No. 8, in
clause 9, page 4, line 22, at end insert
'section (Co-operation between authorities) of'.
New clause 3—Co-operation between authorities—
'(1) If a local authority requests an authority mentioned in subsection (5) to assist it in planning the provision of services to persons—
(a) entitled to an assessment under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (4), or
(b) for whom those persons provide, or intend to provide, a substantial amount of care on a regular basis,
the authority mentioned in subsection (5) must give due consideration to the request.
(2) Subsection (3) applies if—
(a) under a provision mentioned in subsection (4) a local authority is assessing, or has assessed, the ability of a person (''the carer'') to provide and to continue to provide care for another person (''the person cared for''), and
(b) the local authority forms the view that the carer's ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the person cared for might be enhanced by the provision of services (whether for the carer or the person cared for) by an authority mentioned in subsection (5).
(3) If the local authority requests such an authority to provide any such services the authority or person must give due consideration to the request.
(4) The provisions are—
(a) section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c.12), and
(b) sections 1 and 6 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c.16).
(5) The authorities are—
(a) any other local authority,
(b) any local education authority,
(c) any local housing authority, and
(d) any Special Health Authority, Local Health Board, Primary Care Trust, National Health Service Trust or NHS foundation trust.
(6) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply in relation to any action which could be the subject of a request by the local authority to the authority mentioned in subsection (5) under section 27 of the Children Act 1989 (c.41).
(7) In this section—
''local authority'' has the same meaning as in section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19),
''local education authority'' has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (c.56), and
''local housing authority'' has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985 (c.68).'
Dr. Francis: Given what I wanted to achieve and what carers find important, I could not proceed without a clause to promote effective joint working for carers. People's lives are not compartmentalised, unlike many of our public services, and we need creativity and partnership to deliver real benefits for carers. I was advised that section 27 of the Children Act 1989 was useful in delivering such outcomes for children, and I wanted to emulate it in the Bill. That is why we have clause 4.
Dr. Ladyman: Clause 4 is intended to foster joint working to deliver more comprehensive services for carers, and I commend my hon. Friend on incorporating that key aim in the Bill. It is acknowledged that partnership working is vital to ensuring that the population is served by cohesive and seamless services. We all recognise that some partners in health and social care have not been as engaged with carers' issues as we would like.
I understand that clause 4 has found most favour with local authorities that think that its equivalent in the 1989 Act has been effective in bringing individual groups around the table, cutting duplication and facilitating the sharing of information on children's services. As it stands, however, the clause goes much further and would require authorities to provide assistance generally, not just in relation to planning.
I am concerned to ensure that we get the balance right between all the public authorities that provide services for carers. The clause appears to give local authorities the upper hand. It would require an authority to comply with a request for assistance if the request was compatible with its functions. I have said that the Bill should not impose onerous financial burdens on other authorities. Those authorities will have to meet the costs incurred from existing resources. With that in mind, I want to ensure that the legislative provisions produce real benefits for 
carers without placing undue burdens on public authorities.
New clause 3 means that if a local authority requests one of the listed public authorities to assist it in planning services for carers or for persons cared for, the authority must give due consideration to the request. Similarly, if a local authority is assessing or has assessed a carer, and it believes that one of the listed authorities might be able to provide services that would help the carer, the authority must give due consideration to the request. Subsection (6) means that if a local authority could use section 27 of the 1989 Act in a particular case to make a request for assistance, that section applies, not the new clause. That is to ensure that nothing in the Bill takes away from the general power in that section.
New clause 3 will enable social services departments to be better able to call on other authorities to assist in supporting carers and will provide a formal basis for co-operation between authorities to deliver a more coherent service for carers. Importantly, that discussion can take place at the right time. At a strategic level, it will give social services a lever to influence the priorities of their colleagues in health and social care. They will, for example, be able to ask an NHS trust about setting up an information service for carers in relation to planning. We have added an additional duty in relation to co-operation. It is important that councils can engage individually with their partners in health and social care as well as at a planning level. I am sure that we have all heard about requests for support from other authorities or social services being ignored, seemingly arbitrarily. That could change as a result of the Bill.
New clause 3(2) means that if a council is assessing or has assessed a carer and believes that the situation might be enhanced by the provision of services from another authority, that authority must give due consideration to the request.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister say more about the generally understood meaning of ''due consideration'' so that we can be clear about what local and other authorities have to take into account when they are asked to give due consideration?
Dr. Ladyman: I am loth to answer that question off the cuff because I have a horrible feeling that it will turn out to be one of those phrases that has some deep and hidden legal meaning and that I will be rewriting bodies of legislation by trying to define it precisely.
I believe ''due consideration'' to mean that local authorities must give proper consideration to the request that has been made of them. They cannot dismiss it arbitrarily for reasons that they have set in a tablet of stone without due consideration of the merits of the individual case. They cannot have a blanket ban on considering all such requests, but must give proper and specific consideration to the request. They must take into account all relevant matters, including priorities and related issues. The key is that they must give specific consideration to the request. They must not simply take a blanket decision not to consider certain types of request.
The new clause is designed not to place onerous burdens on housing departments, other parts of local government or health bodies. It is, however, designed to ensure that public authorities properly consider requests for assistance made by social services authorities. That gives social services an opportunity to put their case, usually a strong one, about the benefits offered in individual circumstances.
I hope that the Committee will not accept the clause and that the new clause will be added instead.
Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister reflect on the possibility of adding to his list another public body—the probation service? I ask that because I have a constituency case involving a minor with persistent drug addiction. His single-mother carer is under enormous strain working with the statutory services to try to assist him. In such cases, the police and probation service could be part of a multidisciplinary team that could have an input, especially as the police budget is used in drug rehabilitation programmes, and part of that has a knock-on effect on carers as well as the person receiving help. I know that such cases are in a minority, but there are practical examples in which it would be useful to add that body to the list.
Mr. Goodman: I invite the Committee to compare clause 4(3)(d) with new clause 3(5)(d). I have a simple point to make to which there is a probably a good response. The list in clause 4(3)(d) begins with the words ''any Health Authority'', but those words are not in the list in new clause 3(5)(d), which begins with ''any Special Health Authority'' and goes on to name a series of specific health authorities. I am guessing that the Minister excluded ''Health Authority'' because it did not have a specific enough meaning in law. Will he clarify that?
Dr. Ladyman: If I have learned one thing about being a Minister, it is not to make promises on behalf of other Departments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is tempting me to promise something that I would need to discuss with colleagues at the Home Office. However, there is obvious merit in the case that she outlines and I will undertake to raise that with them.
The hon. Member for Wycombe asked about the general nature of the wording of clause 4, which says ''Health Authority''. It is always best to be specific in legislation and the wording of the new clause identifies the specific legal entities involved.
On that basis, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill and, subsequently, that new clause 3 should.
Dr. Francis: I am happy to accept the Minister's proposals and I urge the Committee to support them.
Question put and negatived. 
 Clause 4 disagreed to.

Clause 5 - Co-operation between health bodies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Hywel Francis: The aim of clause 5 was to ensure that health bodies and social services have a duty to work together to promote the health and welfare of carers. We all know that carers' health is precious; it is vulnerable because of the stress that they bear. We know that caring affects health and that services do not always consider carers' health, and I want the Bill to tackle that.
 We have discussed clause 2, and although my legal advice suggests that the original drafting is satisfactory, the Government do not agree for the reasons set out on Second Reading and today. I am grateful to the Minister for finding a way, through directions set out in section 28 of the Health Act 1999, to impress on health bodies the need to focus on and promote carers' health. Therefore, I am willing to omit clause 5 from the Bill. 
 I think that the directions will breathe new life into the way in which health services think about carers, and the need to promote their health and well-being. I am optimistic that new initiatives will flow from them once they have been issued and fully consulted on. That will improve carers' health and thereby their quality of life. 
 In discussing the issue with the Neath Port Talbot local health board, I found that it was enthusiastic about the possibility of directions. It has plans to co-operate—indeed, it is already doing so very successfully—with other bodies, particularly the local authority and the council for voluntary service. 
 I am sure that we can all sign up to what I have outlined and we will benefit many thousands of carers by doing so.

Stephen Ladyman: Since we have already discussed the directions and other matters under clause 2, I can be brief.
 Clause 5 would duplicate existing duties that are placed on the national health service and local authorities under the National Health Service Act 1977 to co-operate in securing and advancing the health and welfare of the people of England and Wales. Carers clearly are people of England and Wales, and, accordingly, there is a duty on local authorities and the national health service to co-operate to secure and advance their health and welfare. No new law is required. 
 Although it may be true that the national health service rarely considers carers in relation to its duties, the tools for co-operation already exist. It is important to remember that legislation is a change to the law; it is not for sending a message. I am also greatly concerned that the clause would separate carers from the population, not only prejudicing the generality of the existing law, but further separating carers and locking them into their caring role. 
 The Government's amendments to the Bill will leave the health and social care services in no doubt that they are required to work together. I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and negatived. 
 Clause 5 disagreed to.

Clause 6 - Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 6, in 
clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert— 
 'Section (Co-operation between authorities), in so far as it confers functions on a local authority within the meaning of that section. 
 Co-operation between authorities.'' '. 
 —[Dr. Ladyman.]
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 8 disagreed to.

Clause 9 - Short title, commencement and extent

Amendment made: No. 8, in 
clause 9, page 4, line 22, at end insert 
 'section (Co-operation between authorities) of'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
 Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1 - Duty to inform carers of right to assessment

'(1) In section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c.12) (assessment of ability of carers to provide care), after subsection (2A) there is inserted— 
 ''(2B) In any case where— 
 (a) a local authority are carrying out an assessment mentioned in paragraph (a) of either subsection (1) or subsection (2) above in relation to the relevant person or (as the case may be) a disabled child, and 
 (b) it appears to the local authority that an individual may be entitled to request (but has not requested) an assessment under the subsection in question of his ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the relevant person or the disabled child, 
 the local authority must inform the individual that he may be so entitled before they make their decision as to the needs of the relevant person or the disabled child.'' 
 (2) After section 6 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c.16) there is inserted— 
 ''6A Duty to inform carers of right to assessment 
 (1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to a local authority that it would be required to carry out a carer's assessment on being asked to do so by— 
 (a) the carer, or 
 (b) a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child (''the responsible person''). 
 (2) The local authority must inform the carer or, as appropriate, the responsible person that he may be entitled to a carer's assessment (but this is subject to subsections (3) and (4)). 
 (3) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the carer if the local authority has previously— 
 (a) carried out a carer's assessment for him in relation to the person cared for, 
 (b) informed him that he may be entitled to a carer's assessment in relation to the person cared for, or 
 (c) carried out an assessment of him under section 4(3) of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 (c.5) in relation to the person cared for. 
 (4) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the responsible person if the local authority has previously carried out a carer's assessment for him in relation to the disabled child or informed him that he may be entitled to a carer's assessment in relation to the disabled child. 
 (5) In this section ''carer's assessment'' means— 
 (a) in the case of the carer, an assessment under section 1 of his ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the person cared for, 
 (b) in the case of the responsible person, an assessment under section 6 of his ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the disabled child.''.'. 
 —[Dr. Ladyman.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2 - Assessment of carers

'(1) In section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c.12) (assessment of ability of carers to provide care), after subsection (2B) (inserted by section (Duty to inform carers of right to assessment)) there is inserted— 
 ''(2C) An assessment under subsection (1) or (2) above must include consideration of whether the carer— 
 (a) works or wishes to work, 
 (b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.'' 
 (2) In section 1 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c.16) (right of carer to assessment), after subsection (3) there is inserted— 
 ''(3A) An assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of whether the carer— 
 (a) works or wishes to work, 
 (b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.'' 
 (3) In section 6 of that Act (assessment of person with parental responsibility caring for disabled child), after subsection (2) there is inserted— 
 ''(2A) An assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of whether the person with parental responsibility for the child— 
 (a) works or wishes to work, 
 (b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.'''. 
 —[Dr. Ladyman.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3 - Co-operation between authorities

'(1) If a local authority requests an authority mentioned in subsection (5) to assist it in planning the provision of services to persons— 
 (a) entitled to an assessment under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (4), or 
 (b) for whom those persons provide, or intend to provide, a substantial amount of care on a regular basis, 
 the authority mentioned in subsection (5) must give due consideration to the request. 
 (2) Subsection (3) applies if— 
 (a) under a provision mentioned in subsection (4) a local authority is assessing, or has assessed, the ability of a person (''the carer'') to provide and to continue to provide care for another person (''the person cared for''), and 
 (b) the local authority forms the view that the carer's ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the person cared for might be enhanced by the provision of services (whether for the carer or the person cared for) by an authority mentioned in subsection (5). 
 (3) If the local authority requests such an authority to provide any such services the authority or person must give due consideration to the request. 
 (4) The provisions are— 
 (a) section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c.12), and 
 (b) sections 1 and 6 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c.16). 
 (5) The authorities are— 
 (a) any other local authority, 
 (b) any local education authority, 
 (c) any local housing authority, and 
 (d) any Special Health Authority, Local Health Board, Primary Care Trust, National Health Service Trust or NHS foundation trust. 
 (6) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply in relation to any action which could be the subject of a request by the local authority to the authority mentioned in subsection (5) under section 27 of the Children Act 1989 (c.41). 
 (7) In this section— 
 ''local authority'' has the same meaning as in section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19), 
 ''local education authority'' has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (c.56), and 
 ''local housing authority'' has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985 (c.68).'—[Dr. Ladyman.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
title, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'place' in line 2.
 I thank you, Mr. Benton, for your chairmanship, and I thank the Committee for its co-operation and constructive approach. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon for all his hard work in getting the Bill to this stage. I especially thank all the officials, not only in my Department but in many others as well, who have worked frantically hard to secure agreement on the amendments and the progress of the Bill. My own officials have done a huge amount of work in a short period of time to help to get the Bill to this stage. 
 I hope that in a few minutes I will be able to acknowledge that the Government can support the Bill, and that Sam's Bill is well on its way to becoming Sam's Act.

Hywel Francis: May I add my thanks to the Minister's, particularly to you, Mr. Benton, for your wise and helpful chairmanship? I also thank all the Bill's sponsors and the members of the Standing Committee. It is invidious to single anyone out, but given that the Bill has had such broad, cross-party support, I should like to thank in particular the hon. Members for Wycombe, representing the official Opposition, for Sutton and Cheam, for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). The range of parties that supported the Bill is indicated by their presence in the Committee.
 I also thank the Minister and his officials. We have had an open discussion at all times and he was always open to reasonable persuasion. I thank Jane Hutt, the Minister for Health and Social Services, and her officials in the Welsh Assembly. She was always an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill. Finally, I again thank Carers UK and Carers Wales, and all the local carers organisations that have written to me on behalf of the many millions of carers. I should like to single out once again my own local authority, Neath Port Talbot county borough council and its social services department, and the Neath Port Talbot local health board, for their invaluable advice. 
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) recently asked me how far we had travelled with the Bill. I would characterise it as a journey of hope for carers. What is most gratifying is that, as we have progressed, we all seem to have travelled in the same direction, and I hope that by the end of the afternoon, we shall have completed another important stage of the journey together. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at six minutes to Four o'clock.